The
Court now examines subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte. Defendants have again failed to adequately
allege diversity in their Amended Petition for Removal.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs
Nancy Claret and John Kanuch filed their Complaint in the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on April 24,
2018. Defendants removed the matter to this Court on June 12,
2018, invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332.[1] Defendant's Notice of Removal alleged
that Plaintiffs are domiciliaries of Louisiana but failed to
properly allege the citizenship of various limited liability
companies and trusts comprising the membership of Defendant
Port Richey Automotive Management, LLC.[2] This Court
explained that an LLC or partnership is a citizen of every
state of which a member is a citizen. The Court ordered that
Defendants amend their Notice of Removal to properly allege
the complete citizenship of all defendants within 20 days or
the case would be remanded.[3]

Defendants
filed their Amended Petition for Removal on July 2,
2018.[4]The Amended Petition for Removal alleges
the citizenship of the trustees and beneficiaries of various
trusts that are members of Defendant Port Richey Automotive
Management, LLC. The Amended Petition for Removal further
alleges that one of the members of Port Richey Automotive
Management, LLC is LCM Investments Holdings II, LLC. One of
the members of that entity is Greenbriar MAG Investments,
LLC. Greenbriar MAG Investments, LLC is comprised of three
members: a natural person domiciled in Michigan, Greenbriar
MAG Holdings, LLC, and Union Lake Auto Partnership, L.P. The
members of Greenbriar MAG Holdings, LLC are a natural person
domiciled in Connecticut and three limited partnerships.
Defendants do not allege the membership or citizenship of
either Union Lake Auto Partnership, L.P. or the three limited
partnerships that are members of Greenbriar MAG Holdings,
LLC.

LAW
AND ANALYSIS

This
Court is duty-bound to examine the basis of subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte.[5] Subject matter jurisdiction
in this case is premised upon diversity of
citizenship.[6] Cases arising under § 1332 require,
inter alia, complete diversity of
citizenship.[7] “The concept of complete diversity
requires that all persons on one side of the controversy be
citizens of different states than all persons on the other
side.”[8] In this matter, the burden of proving
complete diversity lies with Defendants.[9] To carry this
burden, Defendants must “distinctly and affirmatively
allege [ ] the citizenship of the
parties.”[10]

The
manner in which a court determines the citizenship of
juridical persons varies. A corporation is a citizen of every
state in which it is incorporated as well as the state where
its principal place of business is located.[11] Non-corporate
entities, however, do not acquire state citizenship
independent of the entity's owners.[12] Therefore, in
order for a Court to determine the citizenship of an
unincorporated association, such as a partnership, it must
look to the citizenship of all the partners.[13] That rule
extends to limited partners in a limited
partnership.[14] Similarly, the “citizenship of a
LLC is determined by the citizenship of all of its
members.”[15]

Defendants
have again failed to properly plead the citizenship of
Defendant Port Richey Automotive Management, LLC. The Amended
Petition for Removal fails to allege the identity or
citizenship of the members of Union Lake Auto Partnership,
L.P. and the three limited partnerships that are members of
Greenbriar MAG Holdings, LLC: Greenbriar Equity Fund III AIV
MM DIR, L.P.; Greenbriar MAG Holdings Carry, L.P.; and
Greenbriar Coinvestment Partners III, L.P. That any of these
entities take a limited role in managing the unincorporated
associations of which they are members is irrelevant to the
question of those associations'
citizenship.[16]

Furthermore,
this Court finds that granting additional time for Defendants
to amend their Amended Petition for Removal and correct the
defect would be futile. Defendants assert that “for
privacy interests” the membership of the limited
partnerships listed above are “not subject to
disclosure.”[17] The Court respects Defendants'
decision to remain private, but in doing so, Defendants
cannot meet their burden to establish that this Court has
jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the case is
REMANDED to the court from which it was removed.

CONCLUSION

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For the
foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the
case is REMANDED to the Civil District ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.